Project Activities
The project team (a) measured the impact of comprehensive support and improvement (CSI) school designation on student outcomes, especially the effect on new ESSA measures, such as chronic absenteeism and college and career readiness; (b) examined causal pathways that could explain impact results, including principal behavior in support of school improvement; (c) measured the influence of new measures under ESSA on the identification of low-performing schools; and (d) examined the design and implementation of ESSA accountability systems, including the rationale for new measures and supports aligned with them.
Structured Abstract
Setting
The researchers conducted this study in California, Ohio, and Florida and focused on all CSI schools as well as a comparison group of the of lowest-performing non-CSI schools.
Sample
The study compared outcomes in CSI schools to those of non-CSI schools in California (781 CSI schools including 481 bottom 5 percent schools); Ohio (285 CSI schools including 107 bottom 5 percent schools) and Florida (553 CSI schools including 355 bottom 5 percent schools).
The intervention was the designation of schools as CSI schools and the associated actions that follow from that designation. Specifically, researchers examined how principals of CSI schools responded and prioritized areas for improvement and documented the supports and services that the states and school districts provided to CSI schools.
Research design and methods
Researchers used regression discontinuity (RD) designs to examine the impacts on schools above and below the cutoff for the identification of bottom 5 percent Title I schools and used comparative interrupted time-series (CITS) designs to capitalize on the timing of the introduction of processes for CSI identification.
Control condition
The control condition was non-CSI schools.
Key measures
Researchers examined typical measures such as achievement and graduation rate but also examined measures such as chronic absenteeism and college/career readiness. The team administered a principal survey in CSI and non-CSI schools to understand their awareness, prioritizing processes, and interventions to improve student outcomes.
Data analytic strategy
Researchers used RD and CITS to answer causal questions examining CSI designation. They also conducted simulations and other analyses to examine how including new measures altered the set of schools identified as low performing. Through analyses of survey data and interviews, they sought to understand the motivations behind including certain measures and the supports and services provided to CSI schools.
Cost analysis strategy
The research team compared spending levels in CSI and non-CSI schools and conducted descriptive analysis of federal school improvement funding provided to CSI schools. The research team also conducted analyses to examine the amount of additional spending that would be required in CSI schools to make meaningful improvement as a point of comparison to actual spending.
Key outcomes
- Clear, publicly available information that focuses attention on student performance is integral to the change process but can also be a potential stumbling block (Atchison, Özek, Le Floch, & Hurlburt, 2025).
- CSI schools appear to get more support than other low-performing schools, but perhaps not at the level anticipated by policymakers, nor at a level sufficient to catalyze change (Atchison, Özek, Le Floch, & Hurlburt, 2025).
- Despite potential bumps in the road, there is evidence that accountability systems can sometimes work (Atchison et al., 2025).
People and institutions involved
IES program contact(s)
Project contributors
Products and publications
Project website:
Study registration:
Publications:
Atchison, D., Le Floch, K. C., Özek, U., Luu, J., Hurlburt, S., & Boyle, A. (2025). The effects of school accountability ratings in California under ESSA on student graduation and college and career readiness. AERA Open, 11.
Atchison, D., Özek, U., Le Floch, K. C., & Hurlburt, S. (2025). Effects of comprehensive support and improvement school designation under the Every Student Succeeds Act on student outcomes: Evidence from Ohio. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1-35.
Blair, D., Atchison, D., & Le Floch, K. C. (2026). Investing in improvement: A critical look at funding for low-performing schools. Educational Policy, 40(1), 3-40.
Available data:
All descriptive survey results are documented in the following compendium: https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/ESSA-Accountability-Principal-Survey-Descriptive-Results-Report-August-2024.pdf. Research approval guidelines for districts participating in the survey required that data were destroyed at the conclusion of the study, precluding archival of the full dataset. Data used for other descriptive analyses and impact analyses were provided through data sharing agreements with the state education agencies of California, Florida, and Ohio. Interested parties may obtain these data directly from the relevant state agencies, pending establishment of their own data sharing agreements.
Questions about this project?
To answer additional questions about this project or provide feedback, please contact the program officer.
